₦airaland Forum

How can you test for the person holding the remote control of this car ?

nwabekeyi:
Answer my question first, I don’t know anything I’m learning.

How can we test for the existence of an intelligent being?

If you see a toy car turning and reversing itself, then do you have to test for the person holding its remote control before you can accept that the work of intelligence performed by the car does not belong to the car ?

nwabekeyi:
how can we Scientifically test for this intelligent being?

How can we scientifically test for macroevolution ?

prince985:
Because you lack proper understanding of science and logic doesn't mean magic/spirituality is the only possible explanation. This is the problem with most black people's mentality

So only black people believe in spirituality ?

From our experience as intelligent human being, we know what it takes to ASSEMBLE DIFFERENT PARTS OF A COMPLEX SYSTEM by following a set of instructions.

1. You have to read the instruction

2. You have to interpret what you have read

3. You have to implement your interpretation by carrying out some active and specific movements.

These are the minimum requirements.

But additional requirement involved a perfect training on how to ASSEMBLE such parts to form such a complex system.

Yet all these requirements are impossible without INTELLIGENCE and CONSCIOUSNESS.

The fact that this process of ASSEMBLING take place in a biological world does not imply that all these requirements are absent or not catered for in another way.

So we actually know that intelligence and consciousness is required for a ZYGOTE TO TRANSFORM ITSELF INTO A FULL TERM BABY even if we are yet to physically observe the owner of this intelligence and consciousness.
Therefore, my argument is far from being "we don’t know it today doesn’t mean that we won’t know it tommorow".

oaroloye:
MISHIGAS!

I am an implacable opponent of the Theory of Evolution. Yet, it is not entirely irrational.

If the factors existed, that the Evolutionists claim allowed Evolution to take place, really existed- Primordial Environmental Conditions and Million-Year Timespans- Evolution could have written all those genes. It makes sense.

It is unreasonable to deny that.

It demeans Creationism to deny logical premises.

Evolution could have written all those genes. But through what process ?

By process of chance (mutations) ?

rottennaija:
Your knowledge is primitive, as those whose wrote ancient manuscript was

Give us the CURRENT KNOWLEDGE on how natural process interpret the biological information on the DNA template to assemble different parts of animal body.

Unguided natural EVOLUTION or intelligent supernatural CREATION


When identifying the operational mode of things or events in everyday life, there are only three possibilities:
(1) Necessity, (2) Chance, or (3) Design.

Everything that exist operate either by Necessity or by Chance or by Design. Therre is no fourth alternative.


(1) Necessity

To say that something operate by “Necessity” requires that it has been predetermined by a particular natural law and therefore it can only happen in one way. In other words, ONLY ONE possible and inevitable outcome exists, and that outcome must always exist.There is no room for any other possible outcome for something that operate by necessity.

The following are all examples of events that operate by "Necessity" ( i:e they operate by obeying a particular natural law):

(i) revolution of the earth round the sun in an an anticlockwise direction ( earth cannot revolve the sun in a clockwise direction).

(ii) falling of a stone from a height due to gravity (stone cannot just hang in the air without falling)

(iii) Evaporation of water into the atmosphere ( water cannot just remain the same without being vaporized)

In our universe, all these events cannot have any other possible outcomes.

(2) Chance

For something to operate by "Chance" requires that its operation is not by necessity and therefore it can happen in more than one way. In other words, there is room for other possible outcomes for something that operate by process of chance. Therefore, chance and necessity directly CONTRADICT each other. Hence, both of them cannot just operate together in the same event. One must leave for the other to operate.

The following are all examples of events that operate by "Chance";

(i) coming up of "six" while tossing a fair die ( other numbers like "five", "four" or "three" can come up).

(ii) a particular shape formed by water that spilled on the floor ( there are many other possible shapes that can be formed)

(iii) appearance of a beautiful pattern in the midst of clouds in the sky ( clouds can form many different pattern in the sky)


(3) Design

In order to attribute something to design, it requires that there must be more than one possible outcomes (i:e its operation is not by necessity) and it also requires that the something must be complex and specified (i:e has practically zero probability of occurring by chance).

The following are all examples of events that operate by "Design" ;

(i) printing of information on a sheet of paper

(ii) appearance of image on a screen

(iii) movement of a vehicle on the road


A practical example that illustrate the concept of necessity, chance and intelligent design is the arrangement of letter tiles. You will notice that there are basically THREE major modes through which letter tiles can be arranged;

1. When the letters are arranged to follow a particular law. That is to say, one specific letter must be followed by another specific letter. E.g

APZ-APZ-APZ-APZ-APZ

This is an example of NECESSITY.

The only possible outcome is "APZ". There is no room for any other possible outcome for something that operate by necessity

2. When the letters are arranged arbitrarily without following any particular law.
E.g

ATZ-NGH-PHQ-FRA-XDC-JUSL

This is an example of CHANCE.

There are more than one possible outcomes for something that operate by chance.

3. When the letters are arranged to form a specific and meaningful pattern
E.g

WHY-DID-YOU-EAT-THE-FOOD

This is an example of DESIGN.

There are more than one possible outcomes. But those outcomes must form a specific and meaningful pattern.

There is no any other mode through which letter tiles can be arranged apart from these THREE modes.

Here's another practical example that illustrate these three concepts:

Let’s assume that you win the lottery. Depending on the circumstances, your "win" could be the result of necessity, or chance, or design:

Necessity : You were the ONLY PARTICIPANT in the lottery; thus, you had to win, by necessity. ONLY ONE possible and inevitable outcome exists, and that outcome must always exist. There is no room for any other possible outcome.

Chance: There were MANY PARTICIPANTS, the lottery was conducted fairly, and you just happened to win at random by chance.

Design: There were also MANY PARTICIPANTS but your friends RIGGED the lottery so that you were chosen the winner by design.
You will discover that there is no any other way you could win the lottery apart from these THREE causal possibilities.



Now having perfectly understood the THREE causal possibilities explained above, consider the following premises of argument:

PREMISE 1: According to theory of natural evolution, different forms of life that exist on the earth were not purposely created by any intelligent designer. They just gradually evolved and came to exist through natural selection acting on genetic variations produced largely by random mutations ( i:e RANDOM ERRORS ) that occur during DNA replication.

PREMISE 2: But considering the three general modes of operation explained above, DNA replication (together with its proofreading system of enzymes) must operate either through a process of;

# CHANCE ( i:e through a mechanism that is based on randomness) or

# NECESSITY (i:e through a mechanism dictated by a particular natural law)
or

# DESIGN ( i:e through a mechanism that is based on a program created by intelligence ).

There is no fourth mode through which DNA replication can operate

PREMISE 3 : If DNA replication (together with its proofreading system of enzymes ) operate through a mechanism that is purely based on the work of CHANCE, then the DNA replication process must always be accompanied with a LARGE NUMBER OF ERRORS (i:e a great number of mutations must be observed) at every successive generation. This is because if DNA replication (together with its proofreading system of enzymes ) operate through a process of CHANCE, then there would be TWO POSSIBLE OUTCOMES during the proofreading process— (i) choosing the RIGHT nucleotides and (ii) choosing the WRONG nucleotides.
Therefore, it would be impossible to have "distinct and stable reproducing life forms" in the history of life on earth. This is because the constant great change in the DNA sequence at every successive generation must always be reflected in the phenotype . In other words, life forms have to be continuously undergoing a GREAT OBSERVABLE CHANGE at every successive generation WITHOUT forming any "distinct and stable reproducing life forms" which can be REGULARLY NAMED as goat, cow, dog, pig or sheep.

PREMISE 4 : If DNA replication ( together with its proofreading system of enzymes) operate through a mechanism that is purely based on NECESSITY (i:e through a mechanism dictated by a particular natural law), then the DNA replication process must always be COMPLETELY FREE FROM ERRORS (i:e complete absence of mutations must be observed) at every successive generation. This is because if DNA replication (together with its proofreading system of enzymes ) operate through a mechanism that is based on NECESSITY (i:e dictated by a particular natural law), then there would be ONLY ONE POSSIBLE AND INEVITABLE OUTCOME during the proofreading process— which is—choosing the RIGHT nucleotides
There would be NO ROOM for choosing the wrong nucleotides since the function of a proofreading process that operate by NECESSITY (and not by process of chance) is to ALWAYS choose the right nucleotides.

Therefore, if there is PERFECT RESISTANCE TO ERROR during DNA replication (i:e complete absence of mutations), then DNA sequence at every successive generation would always be perfectly remain the same and this would implies consistency in the form of life . In other words, ONLY ONE form of life (like one species of bacteria) would exist on the earth if DNA replication ( together with its proofreading system of enzymes) operate by a mechanism that is base on NECESSITY.

CONCLUSION : Therefore, if DNA replication (together with its proofreading system of enzymes) operate through a mechanism that is NOT based on intelligent DESIGN as evolutionary biologists want us to believe, then the DNA replication ( together with its proofreading system of enzymes) must operate through a mechanism that is either purely based on CHANCE or purely based on NECESSITY (of course, it cannot operate through a mechanism that is based on BOTH of them because "chance" and "necessity" always CONTRADICT each other as we have explained above).

Hence, if what the evolutionary biologists are saying is true , then it is either forms of life should continuously undergoing a GREAT OBSERVABLE CHANGE AT EVERY SUCCESSIVE GENERATION (if DNA replication, together with its proofreading system of enzymes, operate through a mechanism that is purely based on the work of CHANCE) or ONLY ONE FORM OF LIFE, like a species of bacteria, should exist on the earth ( if DNA replication, together with its proofreading system of enzymes, operate through a mechanism that is purely based on the work of NECESSITY).

However, none of these two cases correspond with our present experience regarding the history of life on the earth ; there is no any great observable change at every successive generation of life and yet there are many forms of life (other than a species of bacteria) that exist presently on the earth.

This simply shows that unguided natural EVOLUTION ( which can ONLY operate based on the mechanism of either chance or necessity) is NOT TRUE.
It is only an intelligent supernatural CREATION operating through a mechanism based on DESIGN that can allow for the DNA sequence or its regulation to change drastically at certain times ( for the CREATION of new life forms ) and also allow for the DNA sequence or its regulation to remain the same at other times ( for the REPRODUCTION of preexisting life forms).

This is beyond the power of any other mechanism which can ONLY allow the DNA sequence or its regulation to continuously change ( as in the case of mechanism based on CHANCE) or ONLY allow the DNA sequence or its regulation to remain perfectly the same( as in the case of mechanism based on NECESSITY )

Some evolutionary biologists argued for self organization theory. But the same principle can be applied as follows:


# If self organization of cells during embryonic development is true, then this organization must take place step by step.


# It is either these series of steps exist by process of CHANCE or they exist by NECESSITY (i:e obeying a particular natural law)


# If self organization of cells during embryonic development is by process of CHANCE, then all the steps involved are not expected to remain the same at every generation of life. Therefore, the REGULAR body plan associated with each animal phylum would NOT be observed.

#But if self organization of cells during embryonic development is due to NECESSITY, then every single step involved must always exist at every generation of life. This would automatically result into existence of ONLY ONE body plan. Therefore, about 35 DIFFERENT body plans present in the world of animals would NOT be observed.
This simply shows that organization of cells to form different tissues and organs during embryonic development is neither the work of chance nor necessity but the work of INTELLIGENT DESIGN.


"Evolution is all about constant change, whether gradual or in leaps. Consider a cloud in the sky: it is constantly changing shape due to natural forces. It might look like, say, a rabbit now, and a few minutes later appear to be, say, a horse. In between, the whole mass is shifting about. In a few more minutes it may look like a bird. The problem for evolution is that we never see the shifting between shapes in the fossil record. All fossils are of "COMPLETE" animals and plants, not "WORKS IN PROGRESS" or "UNDER CONSTRUCTION". That is why we can give each DISTINCT plant or animal a NAME.
If evolution's continuous morphing were really going on, every fossil would show change underway throughout the creature, WITH PARTS IN VARIOUS STAGES OF COMPLETION.
For every successful change there should be many more that lead to nothing. The whole process is random trial and error, without direction. So every plant and animal, living or fossil, should be covered inside and out with USELESS GROWTH and have parts UNDER CONSTRUCTION. It is a grotesque image, and just what the theory of evolution really predicts.
Even Charles Darwin had a glimpse of the problem in his day. He wrote in his book On the Origin of Species:
"The number of INTERMEDIATE varieties which have formerly existed on Earth must be truly ENORMOUS. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such FINELY GRADUATED organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."
The more fossils that are found, the better sense we have of what lived in the past. Since Darwin's day, the number of fossils that have been collected has grown tremendously, so we now have a pretty accurate picture. The GRADUAL MORPHING of one type of creature to another that evolution predicts is NOWHERE to be found. There should have been millions of transitional creatures if evolution were true.
In the "tree of life" that evolutionists have dreamed up, gaps in the fossil record are especially huge between single-cell creatures, complex invertebrates (such as snails, jellyfish, trilobites, clams, and sponges), and what evolutionists claim were the first vertebrates, fish. In fact, there are NO TRANSTIONAL FOSSILS at all between single-celled creatures and complex invertebrates, nor between complex invertebrates and fish. That alone is fatal to the theory of evolution. The fossil record shows that evolution never happened.
This is one of the major reason why Stephen Gould and his colleague propounded another theory of evolution called "PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM" in 1972.
This new theory suggests that species of life maintained a long period of "STASIS" before they "RAPIDLY EVOLVED" into another completely different species.

However, Punctuated equilibrium is just a hypothesis ( with no any proposed mechanism) that attempts to explain the pattern of speciation observed in the fossil records.

My greatest irrefutable evidence for existence of God; Please read carefully


The zygote of a cockroach can only develop into a cockroach

The zygote of a tilapia fish can only develop into a tilapia fish

The zygote of an alligator can only develop into an alligator

The zygote of an ostrich bird can only develop into an ostrich bird

The zygote of an elephant can only develop into an elephant.

The zygote of a gorilla can only develop into a gorilla.

The zygote of a blue whale can only develop into a blue whale.

The zygote of a human being can only develop into a human being.

This implies that zygote of a particular animal species must possess a particular set of encoded information representing the physical and behavioral characteristics of that very species of animal.

It is this very encoded information that scientists described as DNA.

This DNA template contains a lot of biological information on how to construct and assemble different parts of animals'body during embryonic development

Since all the organs that make up the body of animal do not form at the same time, the construction of various organs during embryonic development has to follow each other in a sequential manner.

Therefore, all the different information on the DNA template has to be read, interpreted and implemented sequentially for different organs that make up the body to be constructed and assembled at different times.

For example, after the construction of the the three germ layers ( endoderm, mesoderm and ectoderm), the first organ to be constructed during embryonic development is the heart.

According to embryology, there are 5 stages involved in the construction of the heart during embryonic development.

Stage 1: formation of the heart tube.

Stage 2: looping of the heart tube

Stage 3: formation of the heart chambers ( left and right atria, left and right ventricles)

Stage 4 : development of the outflow tracts like ascending aorta and pulmonary trunks

Stage 5: formation of the heart valves ( bicuspid and tricuspid valves)

Molecular studies have shown that more than 500 genes are involved in the development of the mammalian heart.

This implies that those five stages involved in heart development are being controlled by more than 500 strands of information on the DNA template.

So how did relevant encoded information manage to be read, interpreted and implemented to create all the complex events involved in the five stages of the heart construction ?

It is like you are being asked to construct an engine of a motor car by following a set of information given in a particular manual.

If you're not a perfectly trained engineer, then how are you going to read, interpret and implement these set of informations to construct and assemble different parts of the car engine ?


Therefore, if an untrained but intelligent human being cannot just read, interpret and implement a particular information to construct and assemble different parts of a complex system, then how did an untrained and unintelligent natural process manage to READ, INTERPRET and IMPLEMENT the set of information in the human DNA to CONSTRUCT and ASSEMBLE different parts of human body ( like head, eyes, ears, nose, mouth, hands, chest, stomach, thigh, legs, tongue, teeth, gullet, lungs, heart, liver, kidney, spleen, testes, hypothalamus, thyroid etc ) without being guided by any intelligence ?


From our experience as intelligent human being, we know what it takes to CONSTRUCT AND ASSEMBLE DIFFERENT PARTS OF A COMPLEX SYSTEM by following a set of instructions.

1. You have to read the instruction

2. You have to interpret what you have read

3. You have to implement your interpretation by carrying out some active and specific movements.


Therefore, even if we assume that information on the DNA template managed to be evolved and changed with time by unguided processes of nature as the evolutionists want us to believe, then are we to assume again that reading, interpretation and implementation of these different information to construct and assemble different parts of bodies of animals ( like cockroach, tilapia fish, crocodile, ostrich bird, elephant, gorilla and blue whale) during embryonic development also managed to be evolved by unguided processes of nature ?



But one particular thing is certain; if an information on the DNA template managed to be evolved and changed with time by a certain natural process, then READING( by the RNA polymerase), INTERPRETATION ( by the ribosomes) and IMPLEMENTATION ( by the cells) of this very information to construct and assemble different parts of animal body during embryonic development can never also evolved by a natural process because we know from experience that these three processes (reading, interpretation and implementation of an information) can only originate from an " intelligent mind "


Hence, automatic transformation of a very tiny zygote (which is smaller than the size of a mustard seed ) into a comparatively huge and beautiful new born baby during embryonic development must definitely be the work of an intelligence even if we cannot test for the owner of this very intelligence in the science laboratory. Of course we know intuitively that intelligence cannot be the owner of itself.

Take a look at six classes of animals listed below ;

# Invertebrates (like worms, snails and insects)

# Pisces ( like fishes and other marine organisms)

# Amphibians ( like frogs and toads)

# Reptiles (like lizards, snakes, crocodiles and alligators)

# Birds (like eagles, ducks and chickens)

# Mammals ( like whale, goat, dogs, elephants, horse and gorilla)

All these animals have their corresponding males and females whose their COURTSHIP BEHAVIOR and REPRODUCTIVE STRUCTURES are complex but perfectly matched with each other

For example, while male ducks have corkscrew-shaped phalluses, female ducks have anti-corkscrew-shaped vaginal tracts.
Again, while male blue whale has the largest phallus throughout the animal kingdom, female blue whale has the largest vaginal tract.


If different sets of reproductive structures found in all these animals were created by a process of chance (i:e by random mutations), then there is no way for different set of male and female reproductive structures to be COMPATIBLE with each other in terms of ; i. SHAPE, ii. SIZE and iii. FUNCTION.


Are we to believe to that as the phallus of a male duck gradually change to become corkscrew in shape by a process of chance, then vaginal tract of a female duck also gradually change in a CORRESPONDING manner to become anti-corkscrew in shape by another process of chance ?

Again, are we to believe that as the phallus of a male blue whale increases in size gradually and gradually by a process of chance , the vaginal tract of the female blue whale also increases in size gradually and gradually in a CORRESPONDING manner by another process of chance ?

Can two independent processes of chance (random mutations) work toward the same goal over millions of years ?


If process of chance (i:e random mutations in the DNA) cannot fulfill such a difficult task, is there any other process of nature that can make a male and female reproductive structures to be compatible with each other in terms of shape, size and function ? Of course, there is none.

It is only intelligence that can make different sets of two complex entities to be compatible with each other in terms of shape, size and function.


If nobody can deny that different sets of "lock and key" installed in many of our domestic doors were designed by intelligence, then nobody should deny that different sets of male and females reproductive structures that exist in the world of animals ( which is analogous to different sets of lock and key ) were also designed by intelligence.

Since intelligence cannot be the owner of itself, the owner of this very intelligence must actually exist even if we are yet to physically observe his existence. It is the owner of this very intelligence that many people describe as God

TVSA:
And many things could've been eternal working together. Why your insistence on only "SOMETHING" being eternal?





how did big bang preclude many things being eternal? Where did eternity of an entity come in the big bang? Explicate how big bang support one eternal entity.

By the way, you're the one confusing me. You believe big bang now, that the world started 13.8 billion years ago? or you just want to use it to prove your point?

Many things like what are eternal ?

If many things are eternal, then they have to retain their ORIGINAL characteristics. But nothing in the universe retain its original characteristics. Everything in the universe keeps changing. Even the
universe itself is expanding and the fundamental particles will undergo DECAY with the passage of time. This implies that many things are not eternal but they were brought into existence when a gravitational singularity suddenly undergo big bang explosion 13.8 billion years ago.

TVSA:
So the SOMETHING that is always "eternal" actually defeated your logic of "something can NEVER come out from absolutely nothing"

Honestly, it is very difficult to grasp the message you're trying to pass across.

Well, let me just answer you the way I understood your points

My statement which says "something is always eternal" and my statement which says "something can never come out from absolutely nothing" do not defeat each other because it is the something which is always eternal that brought the OTHER things into existence. Therefore, other things were not caused to exist by absolutely nothing. Other things were rather caused to exist by that very something that is always eternal.

TVSA:
or
Many things are actually eternal and they all have their roles. Like Greek mythology

Science has proved that many things were brought into existence 13.8 billion years ago during the period of big bang explosion. Therefore, Greek mythology failed completely because many things are not eternal. They began to exist 13.8 billion years ago

Isinweke:
That's Nature.

Nature ? Did you really understand what I posted up there ?

Pls explain how nature can affect the DNA sequence

peggywebbs:
Please @OP leave atheists alone. I'm tired of having them insulting my God. Opening a thread about them is an invitation to more insults. The word of God is everywhere, let those who have ears, let them hear. You can teach a word of God but please don't mention them. If they will be saved, it is up to them. Salvation is not by force

Thanks for the advice.
May God guide everyone of us to His truth.

CaveAdullam:
please send me your email address.

Thanks.

God bless

Abdulgaffaradebayo@gmail.com

Isinweke:
Same way fools say in their heart.... no one created God

But SOMETHING must be ETERNAL (i:e always exist without being created by anyone).
Here is the reason; if there is absolutely 'NOTHING' in the long past, then there is no way we can have 'SOMETHING' at this present time because something can NEVER come out from absolutely nothing.
This simply shows that something must be eternal i:e always exist and infinitely old without being created by anyone.

The zygote of a cockroach can only develop into a cockroach

The zygote of a tilapia fish can only develop into a tilapia fish

The zygote of a frog can only develop into a frog

The zygote of an alligator can only develop into an alligator

The zygote of an ostrich bird can only develop into an ostrich bird

The zygote of an elephant can only develop into an elephant.

The zygote of a gorilla can only develop into a gorilla.

This implies that zygote of a particular animal species must possess a particular set of encoded information representing the physical and behavioral characteristics of that very species of animal.
It is this very encoded information that scientists described as DNA.

This DNA template contains a lot of biological information encoding the physical and behavioral characteristics possessed by different animal species.
Hence, different animal species must have different DNA sequence.

Therefore, before the evolutionists can proclaim that changes in environmental conditions lead to emergence of new species by process of natural selection, they have to explain how these environmental changes can affect the DNA sequence.


If there is no any physical and behavioral changes occurring at the level of DNA, then natural selection has nothing to act upon . In other words, without changes in the DNA sequence, macroevolution of one species into another species by natural selection is impossible.


But what are the factors that can cause the DNA sequence to change ?
There are only THREE possible factors ;

1. It is either the DNA sequence changes by obeying a certain natural law

2. Or it changes by the process of pure chance (i:e it changes by random mutations)

3. Or it changes by following the guidance of a particular intelligence.

Now let us analyze each of these possible factors one after the other;

The nucleotide bases that make up the DNA sequence are four in number; adenine (A) , guanine (G), thymine(T) and cytosine(C). Therefore, if the different sequences of DNA found in all living species were determined by a certain natural law, then the nucleotide bases that make up the DNA sequence have to be recurring at regular intervals. This is because the arrangement of nucleotide bases would no longer be random but must be strictly guided by such natural law. Hence, one particular nucleotide must be followed by a known and specific nucleotide. That is to say, the DNA sequence should be something like this; AGTCAGTCAGTCAGTC...... where AGTC would be repetitive throughout the sequence.

In other words, if the arrangement in the DNA sequence obey a certain natural law, then the sequence should consist of nucleotide bases reappearing at regular intervals.

However, this is not the case: the nucleotide bases that form the DNA sequence in all extant species do not reappear at regular intervals. Their arrangement are purely random and not predictable.

This implies that there is no any natural law guiding the arrangement of nucleotide bases that make up the DNA sequence of all living species.

In fact, if there is a certain natural law guiding the arrangement of the FOUR nucleotide bases that make up the DNA sequence, then different arrangements found in the nucleotide triplets (i:e the codons) that encode TWENTY different amino acids present in most proteins would not be observed.

Now, if different arrangements of nucleotide bases that make up the different DNA sequence in all living species were not generated by any natural law, then were the arrangements came to exist by process of chance ?

If the different sequences of DNA (that determine the physical and behavioral characteristics found in most animal species) came to exist by the process of chance i:e caused by random mutations, then PERFECT CORRELATION between the male and female reproductive systems found in most animal species would not be observed.


Take a look at six classes of animals listed below ;
# Invertebrates (like worms, snails and insects)
# Pisces ( like fishes and other marine organisms)
# Amphibians ( like frogs and toads)
# Reptiles (like lizards, snakes, crocodiles and alligators)
# Birds (like eagles, ducks and chickens)
# Mammals ( like whale, goat, dogs, elephants, horse and gorilla)

All these animals have their corresponding males and females whose their COURTSHIP BEHAVIOR and REPRODUCTIVE STRUCTURES are complex but perfectly matched with each other


For example, while male ducks have corkscrew-shaped phalluses, female ducks have anti-corkscrew-shaped vaginal tracts.
Again, while male blue whale has the largest phallus throughout the animal kingdom, female blue whale has the largest vaginal tract.

If different sets of reproductive structures found in all these animals were created by a process of chance (i:e by random mutations), then there is no way for different set of male and female reproductive structures to be COMPATIBLE with each other in terms of ; i. SHAPE, ii. SIZE and iii. FUNCTION.

Are we to believe to that as the phallus of a male duck gradually change to become corkscrew in shape by a process of chance, then vaginal tract of a female duck also gradually change in a CORRESPONDING manner to become anti-corkscrew in shape by another process of chance ?

Again, are we to believe that as the phallus of a male blue whale increases in size gradually and gradually by a process of chance , the vaginal tract of the female blue whale also increases in size gradually and gradually in a CORRESPONDING manner by another process of chance ?

Can two independent processes of chance (random mutations) work toward the same goal over millions of years ?


Therefore, if the differences in the DNA sequence (that determine the physical and behavioral characteristics of different animal species) were neither generated by any natural law nor by any process of chance (random mutations), then such differences have to follow the guidance of a particular intelligence.

Of course, it is only intelligence that can make different sets of two complex entities to be compatible with each other in terms of shape, size and function.

If nobody can deny that different sets of "lock and key" installed in many of our domestic doors were designed by intelligence, then nobody should deny that different sets of male and females reproductive structures that exist in the world of animals ( which is analogous to different sets of lock and key ) were also designed by intelligence.

Since intelligence cannot be the owner of itself, the owner of this very intelligence must actually exist even if we are yet to physically observe his existence.

Of course, the fact that we are yet to see the owner of intelligence directing the movement of a toy car through a remote control should never prompt us to deny his existence !

EmperorHarry:
I keep wondering Abdul,why your hellbent on convincing the atheists.It only leaves you jumping on the slightest signs of supposed proof and leaves you dangerously susceptible to confirmation bias.Try to learn without filtering for evidence to "convince the atheists".

But the most important question is this ; how did trapping system and the digestive system of this plant came to exist ?

Did they come to exist by necessity ?
Or did they come to exist by chance ?
Or did they come to exist by design ?

budaatum:
Who said there was "absolutely 'NOTHING' in the long past"?

Your friend, Ketamine9000mg

"Atheists do say this "if the carnivorous flower was designed by a mind and not by chance, can the mind complex enough to design such a flower exist by chance or created by another higher mind?"

Ketamine9000mg:
Atheists do say this "if the carnivorous flower was designed by a mind and not by chance, can the mind complex enough to design such a flower exist my chance or created by another higher mind?"

This very cosmic mind exist neither by chance nor design (i:e created by another higher mind) but by necessity.

See the reason below;

SOMETHING must be ETERNAL (i:e always exist and infinitely old)

Why ? See the logical argument explained below;

(a) For a "change" to occur, a "cause" is required.
(b) Popping of SOMETHING into existence from absolutely NOTHING is a "change" which therefore require a "cause".
(c) But there is no any "cause" present in an absolutely nothing.
(d) Therefore, there is no any cause to trigger a change from absolutely nothing to something.
(e) Hence, popping of something into existence from absolutely nothing is impossible.

Therefore, if there is absolutely 'NOTHING' in the long past, then there is no way we can have 'SOMETHING' at this present time because something can NEVER come out from absolutely nothing.

This simply shows that something must be eternal i:e always exist and infinitely old.

So this very something did not begin to exist by chance nor by creation.

The venus flytrap shown above is a carnivorous plant which has a trapping system for catching its prey—chiefly insects and spiders— and a digestive system for digesting the prey ( using some cocktail enzymes) and then absorbing the resulting nutrients.


The trapping system is formed by the terminal portion of each of the plant's leaves, which is triggered by tiny "sensitive hairs" on their inner surfaces.


When an insect or spider crawling along the leaves touches the sensitive hair, the trap prepares to close, snapping shut only if another contact occurs within approximately twenty seconds of the first strike.

The requirement of surplus triggering in this mechanism serves as a safeguard against wasting energy by trapping objects with no nutritional value, and it is only when the leaves are touched multiple times that digestive enzymes are activated. This is to ensure the trap has caught a live insect worthy of consumption.


Once the trap is tightly closed, digestive enzymes dissolve the insect, and the plant absorbs the nutrient-rich "soup". Seven to ten days later, the trap opens, ready for another meal.

Like other plants, venus flytraps photosynthesize: they get energy from the sun. So why do they trap and digest insects?
The answer lies in the soil. Most plants absorb nutrients from the soil where they grow, and therefore they can't survive in a wet, acidic soil which lacks adequate nutrients. But Venus fly traps are different from most plants. They are able to live in such a poor soil by obtaining most of the nutrients they need from the insects and other small animals they capture.

But the most important question is this ; how did trapping system and the digestive system of this plant came to exist ?

Did they come to exist by necessity ?
Or did they come to exist by chance ?
Or did they come to exist by design ?


It is not by necessity because not all the soil on the earth lack adequate nutrients. Hence, if the Venus fly traps cannot thrive in a soil with low nutritive value, it can still survive in other soil with high nutritive value. Therefore, there is nothing necessitating the growing of venus fly traps in a poor soil. This implies that trapping system and the digestive system of this plant did not come to exist by necessity.



Did two systems come to exist by chance ? The trapping system that catches the insects would be useless if there is no digestive system to dissolve and absorb the nutrients from the body of the insects. Similarly, the digestive system that dissolves the body of the insects would be useless if there is no trapping system for catching the insects. This shows that both systems are complementary to each other. And simultaneous existence of two complementary systems is beyond the work of chance.


If it is neither by necessity nor by chance, then the trapping system and digestive system of a venus fly trap must exist by design.

But design required deliberate planning. And deliberate planning exist only in a mind . This cosmic mind is what many people portrayed as God.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5fOsgrAJiU

T

LordReed:
If I live a good life and your god sees fit to still punish me, then so be it. But I am willing to bet your god doesn't exist any more than the thousands of gods men have worshipped and which we consigned to the history books.

What's the essence of living a good life after someone has denied his Creator. Does it even make sense to you to believe that your great great ancestors are apes, gorillas and chimpanzees ? Is this not an insult to the precious intelligence of man ?

There are thousands of evidence for the existence of God. But you choose to close your eyes against those evidence because of the hatred you have developed for the existence of God.

You now believe that ;


1. Universe is BLIND, yet given enough time a creature that can SEE emerged from the same very Universe.


2. Universe is DEAF yet given enough time a creature that can HEAR emerged from the same very Universe.


3. Universe is DUMB, yet given enough time
a creature that can TALK and SPEAK over six thousand different languages emerged from the same very Universe.

4. Universe has NO KNOWLEDGE about ITSELF yet given enough time a creature that possesed EVERY ASPECT OF KNOWLEDGE about the Universe emerged from the same very Universe

5. Universe is NOT INTELLIGENT, yet given enough time a creature that possessed INTELLIGENCE emerged from the same very Universe.

6. Universe CANNOT THINK yet given enough time a creature that CAN THINK logically and formulate a rational argument emerged from the same very Universe.

7 No part of Universe can move voluntarily, yet given enough time a creature that can MOVE VOLUNTARILY emerged from the same very Universe.


Ask yourself; is this not a CONTRADICTION? Positive qualities which are NO WHERE to be found in the Universe later emerged from the SAME VERY Universe without any external influence.

Can something give to itself what it doesn't have ?

The only factor responsible for all these miraculous transformations is ENOUGH TIME according to your belief.

But does TIME has the capacity to change anything in a positive manner ? What we generally know about time is to cause something left to itself to DISINTEGRATE and never to INTEGRATE.

Yet despite all these CONTRADICTIONS in your belief, you still have the mouth to proclaim that God does not exist.

When we meet on the day of resurrection face to face, then you will agree with me that you have allowed your prejudice to tamper with your faculty of reasoning.

Hopefully, this will be my last post for you on this thread. Don't even bother to reply because I won't read it.

LordReed:
If I live a good life and your god sees fit to still punish me, then so be it. But I am willing to bet your god doesn't exist any more than the thousands of gods men have worshipped and which we consigned to the history books.

What's the essence of living a good life after someone has denied his Creator. Does it even make sense to you to believe that your great great ancestors are apes, gorillas and chimpanzees ? Is this not an insult to the precious intelligence of man ?

There are thousands of evidence for the existence of God. But you choose to close your eyes against those evidence because of the hatred you have developed for the existence of God.

You now believe that ;


1. Universe is BLIND, yet given enough time a creature that can SEE emerged from the same very Universe.


2. Universe is DEAF yet given enough time a creature that can HEAR emerged from the same very Universe.


3. Universe is DUMB, yet given enough time
a creature that can TALK and SPEAK over six thousand different languages emerged from the same very Universe.

4. Universe has NO KNOWLEDGE about ITSELF yet given enough time a creature that possesed EVERY ASPECT OF KNOWLEDGE about the Universe emerged from the same very Universe

5. Universe is NOT INTELLIGENT, yet given enough time a creature that possessed INTELLIGENCE emerged from the same very Universe.

6. Universe CANNOT THINK yet given enough time a creature that CAN THINK logically and formulate a rational argument emerged from the same very Universe.

7 No part of Universe can move voluntarily, yet given enough time a creature that can MOVE VOLUNTARILY emerged from the same very Universe.


Ask yourself; is this not a CONTRADICTION? Positive qualities which are NO WHERE to be found in the Universe later emerged from the SAME VERY Universe without any external influence.

Can something give to itself what it doesn't have ?

The only factor responsible for all these miraculous transformations is ENOUGH TIME according to your belief.

But does TIME has the capacity to change anything in a positive manner ? What we generally know about time is to cause something left to itself to DISINTEGRATE and never to INTEGRATE

Yet despite all these CONTRADICTIONS in your belief, you still have the mouth to proclaim that God does not exist.

When we meet on the day of resurrection face to face, then you will agree with me that you have allowed your prejudice to tamper with your faculty of reasoning.

Hopefully, this will be my last post for you on this thread. Don't even bother to reply because I won't read it.

LordReed:
I did, you then acted like I didn't. I see no further gain in engaging with you on this subject because you have no real interest in understanding it, you just want to debunk the strawman you've created.

Are you saying you did explain how kidney and ureter can independently exist or how ureter, urinary bladder and urethra can independently exist ?

Don't you think it is better to stay on a safer side (theism) than to stay on a dangerous side ( atheism). By being a believer you have nothing to loss if at all you later discover that God does not exist. But by being an atheist, you have lost everything if later you discover that He actually exist

LordReed:
You are like a man who during a conversation puts his fingers in his ears and goes tra la la la, I am not going to listen.

Good luck with that.

What exactly have you said that I have not listened to ?

If you're very sure that kidney and ureter (or ureter, urinary bladder and urethra) did not come to exist at the same time, then explain how there individual existence can be possible. Better still, give us examples of living organisms that posses only one part of all these parts.

LordReed:
Why must the "simultaneous" development be in one generation? And who told you any of the systems developed full grown as you see them now? Like how many times will it be repeated that they develop from simpler forms to the more complex structures you see today?

This is a very simple matter to understand if you don't allow your prejudice to block your faculty of reasoning.


Now reason along with me;

Can a pumping machine be useful without a connecting pipe through which water drawn by the machine will pass ?

Similarly, if kidney exist without the pipe ( the ureter) through which urine produce inside the kidney will EXIT the kidney, then what do you think is going to happen ? The urine will cause the kidney to SWELL and BURST. This implies that kidney and ureter must came to exist at the same time.

Again, can a storage tank be useful if the inlet pipe through which water will ENTER the tank is absent and the outlet pipe through which water will EXIT the tank is also absent ?

Similarly, if urinary bladder ( the storage tank) exist without the inlet pipe ( the ureter) through which urine will ENTER the bladder and without the outlet pipe (the urethra) through which urine will EXIT the bladder, then the urinary bladder is useless. This implies that the ureter, the urinary bladder and the urethra must also came to exist at the same time.

LordReed:
By the accumulation of many relatively small changes over time.

According to theory of evolution, a very complex system came to exist little by little over millions of years through slight modifications.


But this concept of gradual evolution can never work for the urinary system found in all vertebrates including human


Even if we assume that kidney managed to be completely evolved in a single generation, it would still be useless if the pipe (i:e the ureter) through which the urine will exit the kidney is absent. This implies that both kidney and the ureter must came to exist together in a single generation.

Similarly, urinary bladder without the urethra through which the urine will exit the bladder is also useless.

Furthermore, an ejaculatory duct cannot just evolve without being linked perfectly with the urethra . Otherwise, semen would not be able to flow out from the penis during the time of ejaculation.

Therefore, the urinary bladder, the urethra and the ejaculatory duct that linked perfectly with the urethra must also came to exist together in a single generation.

See how simutaneous creation of the main parts of urinary system in a single generation completely nullify the theory of gradual evolution through slight modifications over millions of years.

LordReed:
The changes were not mere to the species that lived in those times. The changes where pretty drastic leading to extinctions in some cases. Also bacteria did not evolve gradually, gradually and gradually into human being. They evolved into many, many, many things way before humans even came on the scene.

There is one important factor you have left behind; Genetic factor (i:e DNA sequence of the living organisms).

The zygote of a goat species would only developed into a goat.

The zygote of a lion species would only developed into a lion

The zygote of an elephant species would only developed into an elephant

This implies that zygotes of different animal species must have different DNA sequence.

Therefore, before the evolutionists can proclaim that changes in the environmental condition lead to speciation, they have to explain how these environmental changes can affect the DNA SEQUENCE.

Without changes in the DNA sequence, speciation can never occur.

This changes in the DNA sequence is what the evolutionists called mutations.

According to the evolutionists, these mutations are RANDOM AND CONSTANTS process. See;

https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/evolution/evolution6.htm

Therefore, being a random event, mutations can be harmful, neutral and beneficial.

However, the evolutionists believed that it is the work of natural selection ( this is where the changes in environmental condition come into play) to keep the mutations that are beneficial while weeding out the harmful ones. So in their view, when these beneficial mutations accumulated enough, a new species would emerged. This is exactly how evolution works according to the evolutionists.

From this little explanation, you can see that "natural selection ( determined by changes in environmental condition)" can only work AFTER "mutations" has finished its work.

Yet mutations are RANDOM. This is the reason why some are harmful while some are neutral and beneficial.

Therefore, proclaiming that existence of male and female ducks' reproductive structures were based on environmental constraints is nothing but sheer ignorance.

If they cannot be created by CHANCE nor NECESSITY, then they have to be created by IINTELLIGENCE.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5fOsgrAJiU

LordReed:
No, no, no.

Constraints are a set of conditions not just a predefined outcome. Every time the conditions change a new outcome is determined. That is how speciation comes about, this is why even merely changing location is enough to allow speciation.

So mere changes in the environmental condition caused the bacteria to evolve gradually, gradually and gradually into human being ?

How does a change in environmental condition lead to evolution of completely new biological systems ?